![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Discussion inaccurate in several respects. (1) Implies Thomson rejected natural selection on account of his Christian faith, perpetuating discredited conflict thesis in the history of science and religion. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field [are] critical of the conflict model and believe it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record." Helen De Cruz, "Religion and Science," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2017 Edition, Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/religion-science/ Kelvin's actual reasons described in Chapters 17 and 18 of Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin, by Crosbie Smith and M. Norton Wise. (2) Implies his views opposed a united geological community. In fact the geological community was divided on the question of the age of the earth. Simple dichotomy between physics and geology addressed and rejected in Norton & Wise, p. 579-80. (3) Neglects the centrality of disputes over proper scientific method which arose in the wake of Origin; weight of scientific opinion in the 1860's against Darwin on the grounds that his views speculative & unempirical & therefor no legitimate part of science. However, in the 1870's and 80's it rose to prominence with the younger generation, who simply changed the definition of science in order to accommodate Darwin's approach; hence dispute over Origin's status in part an inter-generational dispute between scientists as to what ought to count as legitimate methods & assumptions, in which the younger generation eventually prevailed through attrition. Kelvin's views in line with that of earlier generation of scientists, in respect to which Darwin & Huxley stood as outsiders. On this last point see James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 195-200, and surrounding passages generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassian1080 ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
DaveyHume ( talk) 07:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it is not good style to repeat the title Lord before every single mention of the name Kelvin. A few days ago Vsmith removed many of the "Lord"s and left a reasonable number, but subsequently 81.157.153.165 replaced them all with an edit summary saying that 'Kelvin was not his name'. I would say that Kelvin became his name when he was raised to the peerage, and can be used to identify him from that point on. We do not repeat other titles (such as Mr., Ms., Doctor, Professor, Reverend, or even King or Queen) every time we mention a person, so why should Lord be repeated every time?
In the section "Biography, history of ideas and criticism", some of the references have titles including "Lord Kelvin", but others just say "Kelvin". I suggest we do the same in this article, and I think Vsmith has proposed a reasonable selection of when to use "Lord" and when not. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The article does not explain the connection between the two names Thomson and Kelvin. The title "1st Baron" suggests that "Kelvin" is a place in England, but this is not clear. Please clarify. Pgan002 ( talk) 12:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica article makes it clear that the Thomson family originally came from Scotland and they returned to Scotland when William was ten years old. He is therefore by all accounts an Ulster-Scot. Some might even say is is just plain Scottish. The deleted reference was modern propaganda which contradicts the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. When two sources contradict each other, we go by the one which is obviously true. Centuryofconfusion ( talk) 00:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
"Kelvin was Scottish
Although he was born in Belfast in the UK he was of Scottish parentage and the family moved back to Scotland again when he was only ten years old. http://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Thomson-Baron-Kelvin He was never Irish in any real sense. Kelvinside is an area of Glasgow, Scotland, where he took his peerage name from. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by Irish, "in any real sense"?! Do you have a certain narrow caricature definition that you want to impose here, is there a political/tribal aspect to it? Do you want to drag strange old ideas of 'blood' and religion into it? Do you associate the word Irish with some people from particular 'blood lines' and (historically) speaking a certain language? These are quite odd ideas, and sound like something from the 17th century! Thomson was born in Ireland and grew up in Ireland to the age of about 10. When he went to Scotland he was considered Irish, and he considered himself Irish. He considered himself British aswell. He did not consider himself to be from an old Gaelic-Irish family, because he wasn't, and nobody else did either, but all considered him Irish, including himself. In a speech of 1883, William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do you think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with your ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland. Also you wrote that he was of Scottish parentage, but his father was actually the fourth son of a farmer in Co.Down (fyi, not in Scotland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. But Scotch-Irish is the term you want. Not Irish-Scottish. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Scotch-Irish on wikipedia: ·The Ulster Scots people, an ethnic group in Ulster, Ireland, who trace their roots to settlers from Scotland ·Scotch-Irish Americans, descendants of Ulster Scots who first migrated to America in large numbers in the 18th and 19th centuries ·Scotch-Irish Canadians, descendants of Ulster Scots who migrated to Canada Kelvin was none of these things so Scotch/Scots-Irish isn't the correct term. 2A02:C7D:6998:1800:DC7:8EBA:E8A1:521C (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC) He was in the first group that you list. He was an Ulster Presbyterian and his ancestry came from Scotland. He was therefore an Ulster Scot who migrated to Scotland and became Scottish. We could perhaps say that he was Ulster Scot/Scottish. Sandstable (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)”
I want to draw attention to bias in the approach here when compared to other entries. It is important to note that none of the following similar pioneers are called "British" in Wikipedia:
Now, William Thomson was brought up in Ireland, to the age of 10, and received his initial education in Ireland (and when arriving in Scotland at the age of 10 he then went to university there (not unusual at the time, as the article explains). Thomson's family had been in Ireland for four generations (they were of Ulster-Scots heritage). Why is there an attempt to deny the link to Ireland? Some people want to blatantly use a different way to describe him compared to all of the other examples above to suit their own agenda. In a speech of 1883, William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do these people with an agenda think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with their ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland. That is not to say that he was not other things ASWELL.
The link to being raised in Ireland, (by a family resident in Ireland for centuries) and Kelvin's opinion of what that meant, should not be ignored (especially for reasons of bias).
Leaving politics out of it, it is not right that some people suppress the fact of Thomson's Irish link, in the same way that Rankine was Scottish etc., regardless of what way (or how, originally in 1800) Ireland was temporarily in the United Kingdom (against her wishes or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
While consulting the article for another purpose, I noticed the prominent claim that Thomson 'worked closely' with mathematics professor Hugh Blackburn in his work. I was surprised by this, as it seems to imply or insinuate that Thomson needed mathematical assistance. As Thomson was Second Wrangler in his year at Cambridge, and renowned for his mathematical brilliance, this does not seem likely, unless he delegated some donkey-work to Blackburn. So I have also consulted the two main biographies of Thomson (the old one by Silvanus Thompson, and the modern one by Crosbie Smith and Norton Wise), and find nothing to support it. Smith and Wise only give Blackburn two brief mentions. Unless there is something else to substantiate the claim, I suggest it be deleted. If anyone should be prominently mentioned as a collaborator of Thomson, it is surely Peter Guthrie Tait, who co-authored major works with him. 2A00:23C8:7906:1301:14DD:336C:348E:D34B ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ExtorcDev ( talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin → Lord Kelvin – I don't see how the current title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I searched and checked the references in the article but it seems like every source published after he became Lord Kelvin mentions him being called "Lord Kelvin". It seems fine that the article calls him William Thomson (after all he only got that name later in his life), but "Lord Kelvin" is his most recognizable name and should be the article title. Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 23:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Here are some reference works which deal with Kelvin:
British theoretical and experimental physicist
Lord Kelvin 1824–1907 British physicist and natural philosopher
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)Kelvin, Lord (1824–1907) The British mathematician, physicist and engineer
A Belfast-born Scottish scientist
Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson) (1824–1907) Scottish physicist
Lord Kelvin 1824–1907 British scientist
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson; 1824–1907) British physicist
Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson; 1824–1907) British physicist, born in Belfast
The majority here quoted here treat him as "British". A few say "Scottish". Not one says "Irish". "British" is probably best because of 1.) his strong connection with the UK, in which he was born and died, and of which he was a citizen 2.) his strong connection with the island of Great Britain, on which he lived for most of his life, 3.) his close connection with the British Isles, within which he has connections to more than one country and to more than one island, and 4.) the fact that the relevant demonym for all these is "British". 5.) Wikipedia defers to what reliable sources say and the way other encyclopaedic and reference material treat the subjects this encyclopaedia covers. @ Dirac66: In light of your recent change, the American encyclopaedia may label Kelvin "Scottish" in its headline, but it also refers to him as "British" in the article, so Britannica`s variance from the majority of sources can hardly be taken to contradict them. GPinkerton ( talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC) @ Donn300: Please present any sources you can for your uncited changes. GPinkerton ( talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Have we actually reached a consensus here? There's an IP that wants to change this back to 'Irish'. I normally keep well out of these debates, but that looks like POV-pushing to me. Thomson clearly never self-identified as Irish, but do we have a consensus as to what the article should say? Philip Trueman ( talk) 01:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@ DeFacto The discussion just above concluded that Lord Kelvin is best known by that name. Is that not sufficient? Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 22:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
"Also known as" is much easier to prove than "Best known as". Dirac66 ( talk) 21:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Discussion inaccurate in several respects. (1) Implies Thomson rejected natural selection on account of his Christian faith, perpetuating discredited conflict thesis in the history of science and religion. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field [are] critical of the conflict model and believe it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record." Helen De Cruz, "Religion and Science," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2017 Edition, Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/religion-science/ Kelvin's actual reasons described in Chapters 17 and 18 of Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin, by Crosbie Smith and M. Norton Wise. (2) Implies his views opposed a united geological community. In fact the geological community was divided on the question of the age of the earth. Simple dichotomy between physics and geology addressed and rejected in Norton & Wise, p. 579-80. (3) Neglects the centrality of disputes over proper scientific method which arose in the wake of Origin; weight of scientific opinion in the 1860's against Darwin on the grounds that his views speculative & unempirical & therefor no legitimate part of science. However, in the 1870's and 80's it rose to prominence with the younger generation, who simply changed the definition of science in order to accommodate Darwin's approach; hence dispute over Origin's status in part an inter-generational dispute between scientists as to what ought to count as legitimate methods & assumptions, in which the younger generation eventually prevailed through attrition. Kelvin's views in line with that of earlier generation of scientists, in respect to which Darwin & Huxley stood as outsiders. On this last point see James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 195-200, and surrounding passages generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassian1080 ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
DaveyHume ( talk) 07:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it is not good style to repeat the title Lord before every single mention of the name Kelvin. A few days ago Vsmith removed many of the "Lord"s and left a reasonable number, but subsequently 81.157.153.165 replaced them all with an edit summary saying that 'Kelvin was not his name'. I would say that Kelvin became his name when he was raised to the peerage, and can be used to identify him from that point on. We do not repeat other titles (such as Mr., Ms., Doctor, Professor, Reverend, or even King or Queen) every time we mention a person, so why should Lord be repeated every time?
In the section "Biography, history of ideas and criticism", some of the references have titles including "Lord Kelvin", but others just say "Kelvin". I suggest we do the same in this article, and I think Vsmith has proposed a reasonable selection of when to use "Lord" and when not. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The article does not explain the connection between the two names Thomson and Kelvin. The title "1st Baron" suggests that "Kelvin" is a place in England, but this is not clear. Please clarify. Pgan002 ( talk) 12:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica article makes it clear that the Thomson family originally came from Scotland and they returned to Scotland when William was ten years old. He is therefore by all accounts an Ulster-Scot. Some might even say is is just plain Scottish. The deleted reference was modern propaganda which contradicts the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. When two sources contradict each other, we go by the one which is obviously true. Centuryofconfusion ( talk) 00:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
"Kelvin was Scottish
Although he was born in Belfast in the UK he was of Scottish parentage and the family moved back to Scotland again when he was only ten years old. http://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Thomson-Baron-Kelvin He was never Irish in any real sense. Kelvinside is an area of Glasgow, Scotland, where he took his peerage name from. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by Irish, "in any real sense"?! Do you have a certain narrow caricature definition that you want to impose here, is there a political/tribal aspect to it? Do you want to drag strange old ideas of 'blood' and religion into it? Do you associate the word Irish with some people from particular 'blood lines' and (historically) speaking a certain language? These are quite odd ideas, and sound like something from the 17th century! Thomson was born in Ireland and grew up in Ireland to the age of about 10. When he went to Scotland he was considered Irish, and he considered himself Irish. He considered himself British aswell. He did not consider himself to be from an old Gaelic-Irish family, because he wasn't, and nobody else did either, but all considered him Irish, including himself. In a speech of 1883, William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do you think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with your ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland. Also you wrote that he was of Scottish parentage, but his father was actually the fourth son of a farmer in Co.Down (fyi, not in Scotland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. But Scotch-Irish is the term you want. Not Irish-Scottish. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Scotch-Irish on wikipedia: ·The Ulster Scots people, an ethnic group in Ulster, Ireland, who trace their roots to settlers from Scotland ·Scotch-Irish Americans, descendants of Ulster Scots who first migrated to America in large numbers in the 18th and 19th centuries ·Scotch-Irish Canadians, descendants of Ulster Scots who migrated to Canada Kelvin was none of these things so Scotch/Scots-Irish isn't the correct term. 2A02:C7D:6998:1800:DC7:8EBA:E8A1:521C (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC) He was in the first group that you list. He was an Ulster Presbyterian and his ancestry came from Scotland. He was therefore an Ulster Scot who migrated to Scotland and became Scottish. We could perhaps say that he was Ulster Scot/Scottish. Sandstable (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)”
I want to draw attention to bias in the approach here when compared to other entries. It is important to note that none of the following similar pioneers are called "British" in Wikipedia:
Now, William Thomson was brought up in Ireland, to the age of 10, and received his initial education in Ireland (and when arriving in Scotland at the age of 10 he then went to university there (not unusual at the time, as the article explains). Thomson's family had been in Ireland for four generations (they were of Ulster-Scots heritage). Why is there an attempt to deny the link to Ireland? Some people want to blatantly use a different way to describe him compared to all of the other examples above to suit their own agenda. In a speech of 1883, William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do these people with an agenda think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with their ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland. That is not to say that he was not other things ASWELL.
The link to being raised in Ireland, (by a family resident in Ireland for centuries) and Kelvin's opinion of what that meant, should not be ignored (especially for reasons of bias).
Leaving politics out of it, it is not right that some people suppress the fact of Thomson's Irish link, in the same way that Rankine was Scottish etc., regardless of what way (or how, originally in 1800) Ireland was temporarily in the United Kingdom (against her wishes or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
While consulting the article for another purpose, I noticed the prominent claim that Thomson 'worked closely' with mathematics professor Hugh Blackburn in his work. I was surprised by this, as it seems to imply or insinuate that Thomson needed mathematical assistance. As Thomson was Second Wrangler in his year at Cambridge, and renowned for his mathematical brilliance, this does not seem likely, unless he delegated some donkey-work to Blackburn. So I have also consulted the two main biographies of Thomson (the old one by Silvanus Thompson, and the modern one by Crosbie Smith and Norton Wise), and find nothing to support it. Smith and Wise only give Blackburn two brief mentions. Unless there is something else to substantiate the claim, I suggest it be deleted. If anyone should be prominently mentioned as a collaborator of Thomson, it is surely Peter Guthrie Tait, who co-authored major works with him. 2A00:23C8:7906:1301:14DD:336C:348E:D34B ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ExtorcDev ( talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin → Lord Kelvin – I don't see how the current title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I searched and checked the references in the article but it seems like every source published after he became Lord Kelvin mentions him being called "Lord Kelvin". It seems fine that the article calls him William Thomson (after all he only got that name later in his life), but "Lord Kelvin" is his most recognizable name and should be the article title. Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 23:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Here are some reference works which deal with Kelvin:
British theoretical and experimental physicist
Lord Kelvin 1824–1907 British physicist and natural philosopher
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)Kelvin, Lord (1824–1907) The British mathematician, physicist and engineer
A Belfast-born Scottish scientist
Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson) (1824–1907) Scottish physicist
Lord Kelvin 1824–1907 British scientist
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson; 1824–1907) British physicist
Kelvin, Lord (William Thomson; 1824–1907) British physicist, born in Belfast
The majority here quoted here treat him as "British". A few say "Scottish". Not one says "Irish". "British" is probably best because of 1.) his strong connection with the UK, in which he was born and died, and of which he was a citizen 2.) his strong connection with the island of Great Britain, on which he lived for most of his life, 3.) his close connection with the British Isles, within which he has connections to more than one country and to more than one island, and 4.) the fact that the relevant demonym for all these is "British". 5.) Wikipedia defers to what reliable sources say and the way other encyclopaedic and reference material treat the subjects this encyclopaedia covers. @ Dirac66: In light of your recent change, the American encyclopaedia may label Kelvin "Scottish" in its headline, but it also refers to him as "British" in the article, so Britannica`s variance from the majority of sources can hardly be taken to contradict them. GPinkerton ( talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC) @ Donn300: Please present any sources you can for your uncited changes. GPinkerton ( talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Have we actually reached a consensus here? There's an IP that wants to change this back to 'Irish'. I normally keep well out of these debates, but that looks like POV-pushing to me. Thomson clearly never self-identified as Irish, but do we have a consensus as to what the article should say? Philip Trueman ( talk) 01:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@ DeFacto The discussion just above concluded that Lord Kelvin is best known by that name. Is that not sufficient? Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 22:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
"Also known as" is much easier to prove than "Best known as". Dirac66 ( talk) 21:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)